Author
Topic: D800 WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN THE FIRST WEEK OF FEB. (Read 19031 times)

I think the G1X dxo measurements are a bit worrying, looks like Canon still can't make as good pixels as Sony. Seems to perform about the same as the 7D from 2009... but of course you can compete in other ways than sensor quality I guess...

kirillica

I think the G1X dxo measurements are a bit worrying, looks like Canon still can't make as good pixels as Sony. Seems to perform about the same as the 7D from 2009... but of course you can compete in other ways than sensor quality I guess...

Tell me, why G1X should be better, than semi-professional DSLR 7D?

Am sure Canon can do an excellent job with sensors, and we will see it in 1DX model, for example.

I think the G1X dxo measurements are a bit worrying, looks like Canon still can't make as good pixels as Sony. Seems to perform about the same as the 7D from 2009... but of course you can compete in other ways than sensor quality I guess...

Tell me, why G1X should be better, than semi-professional DSLR 7D?

Am sure Canon can do an excellent job with sensors, and we will see it in 1DX model, for example.

Because it is produced two years later. It is the same pixel size, 4um pixels should perform better today than two years ago.

It is not necessary to differentiate the G1X and 7D on the sensor, the 7D is a DSLR with the autofocus, speed, build, interchangable lenses etc.

I would be surprised if they make the G1X sensor deliberately less good than they can, then they could just as well make a smaller sensor instead and made the camera more compact.

But sure, 1DX will be a safer benchmark to look at. Of what I have seen so far I'm a bit afraid that the sensor performance hype coming from Canon on the newer and coming models are more about JPEG noise reduction in digic5 than about raw sensor performance. I'd love to be proven wrong. But if I'm right I can keep my 5Dmk2 longer, so that's kind of ok too :-).

I think the G1X dxo measurements are a bit worrying, looks like Canon still can't make as good pixels as Sony. Seems to perform about the same as the 7D from 2009... but of course you can compete in other ways than sensor quality I guess...

Tell me, why G1X should be better, than semi-professional DSLR 7D?

Am sure Canon can do an excellent job with sensors, and we will see it in 1DX model, for example.

Because it is produced two years later. It is the same pixel size, 4um pixels should perform better today than two years ago.

It is not necessary to differentiate the G1X and 7D on the sensor, the 7D is a DSLR with the autofocus, speed, build, interchangable lenses etc.

I would be surprised if they make the G1X sensor deliberately less good than they can, then they could just as well make a smaller sensor instead and made the camera more compact.

But sure, 1DX will be a safer benchmark to look at. Of what I have seen so far I'm a bit afraid that the sensor performance hype coming from Canon on the newer and coming models are more about JPEG noise reduction in digic5 than about raw sensor performance. I'd love to be proven wrong. But if I'm right I can keep my 5Dmk2 longer, so that's kind of ok too :-).

I think 7D comparison becomes relevant due to the price tag on G1X - it is in the same range as 600D and even 60D with that 18mp sensor... Yes, then there are additional costs of lenses for 600D/60D and then G1X being a compact camera... To me it does not justify the price but then different needs, different evaluations...

It's funny... on the Nikon boards you hear quite a few people saying things like "I need to hurry up and get the D700 before it's too late/I'm afraid that the D800 is going to suck."

I have NEVER seen a post saying "I better hurry up and get a 5D2 because the 5D3 is going to suck."

Just sayin....

I think you're seeing users react to the possibility of a D800 with 36mp vs a D700 with 12mp. There are quite a few people who simply don't need or want a FF 36mp DSLR which is why the D700 (at its current price point) is still in demand among Nikon users. Without it Nikon no longer has a semi-pro priced FF camera that has the qualities certain users want (reasonable mp count, speed, great high ISO performance).

Had a Nikon user tell me yesterday that she doesn't like the new cameras because they haven't got the AF motors in the body - so she is staying on the D90.

She doesn't know what she's talking about. Nikon includes in-body AF motors (for use with older non-AFS autofocus lenses) from a certain price point in their DSLR camera line (essentially all of their DSLRs except the first two entry level models... which are the D3100/D3000 and the D5100/D5000).

Her D90, while still listed for sale on Nikon USA's page, was replaced by the D7000 (similar situation with the D4/D3s, the D5100/D5000, and the D3100/D3000 - both the old model and its replacement are listed).

Why would you say that based on that picture? Unless you are into really large print, you will not see much different between 22MP and 36MP. You will see a big difference however in the better ISO performance from a 5DmkIII for the every day use (hopefully anyway).

This is a misconception. Sensor size and technology level are the primary drivers of high ISO performance, not pixel size. I wouldn't bet on a 5D3 having better high ISO just based on pixel size.

I do agree that for normal print sizes you would not notice a difference between 22 and 36 MP. However, for those of us who do like to make large prints, the difference will be there and might be enough to force a switch if Canon does not answer Nikon quickly.

Even if the 5D3 has superior high ISO, how many people will see it "every day"? Most shots are made in the ISO 100-800 range, not 6400 and 12,800. I don't want to sacrifice total resolution for a little less noise at an ISO I'll never use.

If that is supposed to be a future official Nikon sample image, why would they use lighting conditions that would require such a low shutterspeed, to the point that there is motion blur evident? This has resulted in a soft double image, that does little for showing the capabilities of the camera, beyond low noise levels.

Why would you say that based on that picture? Unless you are into really large print, you will not see much different between 22MP and 36MP. You will see a big difference however in the better ISO performance from a 5DmkIII for the every day use (hopefully anyway).

This is a misconception. Sensor size and technology level are the primary drivers of high ISO performance, not pixel size. I wouldn't bet on a 5D3 having better high ISO just based on pixel size.

I do agree that for normal print sizes you would not notice a difference between 22 and 36 MP. However, for those of us who do like to make large prints, the difference will be there and might be enough to force a switch if Canon does not answer Nikon quickly.

Even if the 5D3 has superior high ISO, how many people will see it "every day"? Most shots are made in the ISO 100-800 range, not 6400 and 12,800. I don't want to sacrifice total resolution for a little less noise at an ISO I'll never use.

Unless I use a flash, if I want to freeze action for my indoor shots (even with my daughter) then I need to shoot at least with ISO 1600 depending on lighting and lenses. Sure I have very fast lens but you also dont always want to shoot at f1.2 so I end up using ISO 1600-6400 quite a bit. I would see and appreciate better ISO performance everyday!

Even if the 5D3 has superior high ISO, how many people will see it "every day"? Most shots are made in the ISO 100-800 range, not 6400 and 12,800. I don't want to sacrifice total resolution for a little less noise at an ISO I'll never use.

Much like JR, between October to March the majority of my photography takes place wide open at 2.8, 1/500 and ISO 3200, and even then I have to push my exposures a bit in post. I also can't presently shoot in certain arenas because they are too dark, as I would need 6400 or 12800 in order to maintain the shutter speed to stop action. Taking pictures of my kids' teams is certainly not one of the cheaper things I love to do!

Even if the 5D3 has superior high ISO, how many people will see it "every day"? Most shots are made in the ISO 100-800 range, not 6400 and 12,800. I don't want to sacrifice total resolution for a little less noise at an ISO I'll never use.

Unless I use a flash, if I want to freeze action for my indoor shots (even with my daughter) then I need to shoot at least with ISO 1600 depending on lighting and lenses. Sure I have very fast lens but you also dont always want to shoot at f1.2 so I end up using ISO 1600-6400 quite a bit. I would see and appreciate better ISO performance everyday!

+1. I prefer to stick to ISO 3200, and often want more than eyelashes in focus even with an f/1.2 lens. If RAW ISO 6400 on a new body looks like ISO 3200 on the 5DII, I'll be quite pleased.

Why would you say that based on that picture? Unless you are into really large print, you will not see much different between 22MP and 36MP. You will see a big difference however in the better ISO performance from a 5DmkIII for the every day use (hopefully anyway).

This is a misconception. Sensor size and technology level are the primary drivers of high ISO performance, not pixel size. I wouldn't bet on a 5D3 having better high ISO just based on pixel size.

That's not a misconception, that's physics.

All else being equal, larger photo sites collect more light, and will require less amplification at a given ISO setting, producing less noise.

Why would you say that based on that picture? Unless you are into really large print, you will not see much different between 22MP and 36MP. You will see a big difference however in the better ISO performance from a 5DmkIII for the every day use (hopefully anyway).

This is a misconception. Sensor size and technology level are the primary drivers of high ISO performance, not pixel size. I wouldn't bet on a 5D3 having better high ISO just based on pixel size.

That's not a misconception, that's physics.

All else being equal, larger photo sites collect more light, and will require less amplification at a given ISO setting, producing less noise.